Thanks for the links. They are some oldies, but goodies in there. The discussion has become much richer in the last few years, with new studies more clearly pointing toward plant consciousness and the verification of other border sciences that show consciousness as much more expansive than the human brain.
We are watching the collapse of generally accepted definitions of consciousness, such as that from John Locke in Concerning Human Understanding where he defined consciousness as "the perception of what passes in man's own mind".
But once the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy took the definition of consciousness to be, "The quality or state of being aware of an external object...", that left the door wide open to many other discussions.
Even in the late 1970s, you would see absurd statements such as James Gibson in The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception where he stated that plants do not move (which is clearly false), lack a nervous system (depends on your definition), do not behave (again false) and do not have sensations (I have graphs that show otherwise), which made them clearly not worth of study. How wrong could one be?!
All that being said, there are still those that want to limit consciousness to humans, maybe a few mammals here and there. I am curious to hear how others see it.
In fact, @yvesoler, consciousness is the state of mind through which we can perceive of the things around us as they have truly existed.
I mean, being conscious means having full awareness, apart from being subconscious or unconscious, which constitute having partial or lack of awareness.
I am @gboyegaogunmola. I am a writer. I want people to solve personal problems, through reading my personality literature.
I believe that, consciousness is a condition of the mind that we usually experience in our life, and which we really have to appreciate.
Because, without us having the span of attention, quotient of concentration, circuit of memory, and consciousness of mind, we won't be the versatile human beings which we are in the world of today.
I also feel that consciousness is more a state of awareness. But is it limited to human beings and some mammals?
How would you define "mind"? I ask because for some it is a synonym for "brain", while for others it refers to thinking and processing, regardless of its physical representation.
Thank you for your comment, @yvesoler. I have just received it.
I believe that, it is the higher order animals (all kinds of cats, dogs, apes, etc.) that will have the state of mind, which is very conscious of their environment.
Because, they will depend a lot on being aware of what goes on around them to become successful in the world. I think, the mammals are social creatures in the way they usually adapt into the environment, and so, they should always be conscious of themselves and their environment.
Many people believe that the brain and mind are the same kind of entity. But, the psychologists who deal with the mind, as it affects the behaviour, will have some distinctions.
The brain is a physical and visible entity, which coordinates the activities of the body. While the mind is a perceived and invisible entity, which controls the process of thinking, and eventually, the way we behave.
In this way, we are made up of the body and mind, in our existence as social animals. This makes us to think, perceive, and act, in various ways. And, we tend to develop different ways of life within the world in which we live.
I completely agree with everything you said, only that I would not limit it to animals. By your very own definition, you talk about "mind" as being "conscious of themselves and their environment". Plants fit into this category as well, therefore they are conscious beings with "mind", even if they don't possess a brain. Their "thinking" processes are distributed, while humans are centralized, but this difference does not make the underlying experience any difference, right?
Thank you, @yvesoler, for making this clarification.
I have only mentioned the animal kingdom, whereas the plant kingdom shouldn't be left out. Because, these two kingdoms have certain things in common. It is only that, the lifestyle of animals shows more social and emotional discrepancies than that of the plants, through their ways of adapting into the environment.
The plants too have shown certain issues of having consciousness within their environment. They will react to the factors that make up the environment in certain ways.
Thereby, they tend to think and behave in peculiar ways, according to those factors that constitute the environment in which they live.
Did you know that plants also exhibit social behaviors, such as playing and passing down generational information? Stefano Mancuso often shows a video of Sunflower sprouts playing as they grow. A Sunflower that grows on its own without this type of social interaction with other sunflower plants, he explains, cannot be later integrated because it lacks the social skills. You can hear it straight from him in his TED talk, The roots of plant intelligence.
Plants are also recognize their own kind and pass on information and nutrition just to them. If you have three plants near each other and they are of the same species and the same family(meaning they are all parents and children), then they will share 100% of the information about their location, environment, predators, health, etc. If they are the same species, but not the same family, they will only pass on a percentage of information. If they are different species, then they will only pass on information about threats and predators. You can read more about the work of Suzanne Simard in understanding how plant families work in the forest.
Plants are much more "conscious" than most people realize.
Thank you, @yvesoler, for the considerable advice about the social importance of plants, as group of living things in the world.
I read Guidance & Counselling, B. Ed., a course related to Counselling Psychology. That's why, I have more knowledge of the animal world, than the plant world.
But, I believe that, whatever the animals have exhibited for their survival, the plants are bound to have similar tendencies. Because, they will both have to survive through the perils of this world.
But, I believe that the animals, as represented by the human beings, have shown more tendencies of a highly adaptive social and emotional lifestyle, through their rate of advanced development and dominant influence in the world of today.
I really believe that, the plants will have complimentary social and adaptive behaviour, to favour what the animals could have being doing. But, they will ultimately lack the social pressure exhibited by us, as they are lacking in the corresponding social tendencies.
I haven't being able to listen to Stefano Mancuso, about Plant Intelligence, but I will really do that later.
I only replied early, so that I won't delay the conversation.
You have really informed me about the plants.
Thanks again.
I appreciate the reply. Don't worry about the speed; I am also very busy in this period, so take your time.
I have a feeling your thoughts will change once you start learning about the work by Mancuso and Simard and many others. Remember, plants make up 99.7% of our planet. They are among the oldest beings on the planet and have not only survived, they continuously evolve to colonize new environments. Social relationships are the key to their existence. And while you do not think of them as dominant, just look at any sidewalk and watch how plants break through the strongest of concrete when they want to reach a specific location. We can't survive without them, but they will do just fine once we are gone.
I also feel that consciousness is more a state of awareness.
I too believe this. Based on many studies of how plants react when people talk lovingly to them when measured with those who don't/or talk negatively to them it appears plants have an awareness as well.
Not being a scientist, the most obvious question I have is whether the change has to do with the plant or the intent of the person. I can't say with certainty, although for reasons not scientific but more intuited I believe plants do have consciousness. Which then leads me to speculate if consciousness is a trait that has to do more with water than a brain as we know it. Since I was a child I have heard it said that water is the basis for life, so it seems logical to conclude it is the basis for consciousness.
I almost passed up your post until I read the comments. Will be checking back in the hopes of more finding your post and adding more considerations to your question.
The idea that consciousness could be tied to water is one I have not heard before, but it could fit in quite nicely with the panpsychism view, which states that everything physical, no matter if it is animate or inanimate, has an element of consciousness. If you were to think of water as the basis of consciousness, then this could make even more sense, since all objects have some level of moisture in them.
Thanks for the idea, it gives me a new direction for my studies.
Last night I was introduced to the cognitive theories of Maturana and Varela, which added another element to the discussion of consciousness, this time as a process in the network of life. I will be doing more study on this surely.
Thanks for being a part of the conversation. I look forward to your additional considerations!
Congratulations, you were featured by @practicalthought in the Pay it Forward Curation contest !
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-lede-t.html
https://boingboing.net/2017/08/23/everything-even-a-rock-has-s.html
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/if-everything-is-consciousness-is-everything-conscious/
Thanks for the links. They are some oldies, but goodies in there. The discussion has become much richer in the last few years, with new studies more clearly pointing toward plant consciousness and the verification of other border sciences that show consciousness as much more expansive than the human brain.
We are watching the collapse of generally accepted definitions of consciousness, such as that from John Locke in Concerning Human Understanding where he defined consciousness as "the perception of what passes in man's own mind".
But once the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy took the definition of consciousness to be, "The quality or state of being aware of an external object...", that left the door wide open to many other discussions.
Even in the late 1970s, you would see absurd statements such as James Gibson in The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception where he stated that plants do not move (which is clearly false), lack a nervous system (depends on your definition), do not behave (again false) and do not have sensations (I have graphs that show otherwise), which made them clearly not worth of study. How wrong could one be?!
All that being said, there are still those that want to limit consciousness to humans, maybe a few mammals here and there. I am curious to hear how others see it.
In fact, @yvesoler, consciousness is the state of mind through which we can perceive of the things around us as they have truly existed.
I mean, being conscious means having full awareness, apart from being subconscious or unconscious, which constitute having partial or lack of awareness.
I am @gboyegaogunmola. I am a writer. I want people to solve personal problems, through reading my personality literature.
I believe that, consciousness is a condition of the mind that we usually experience in our life, and which we really have to appreciate.
Because, without us having the span of attention, quotient of concentration, circuit of memory, and consciousness of mind, we won't be the versatile human beings which we are in the world of today.
Welcome @gboyegaogunmola, and than you for your response!
I also feel that consciousness is more a state of awareness. But is it limited to human beings and some mammals?
How would you define "mind"? I ask because for some it is a synonym for "brain", while for others it refers to thinking and processing, regardless of its physical representation.
Thank you for your comment, @yvesoler. I have just received it.
I believe that, it is the higher order animals (all kinds of cats, dogs, apes, etc.) that will have the state of mind, which is very conscious of their environment.
Because, they will depend a lot on being aware of what goes on around them to become successful in the world. I think, the mammals are social creatures in the way they usually adapt into the environment, and so, they should always be conscious of themselves and their environment.
Many people believe that the brain and mind are the same kind of entity. But, the psychologists who deal with the mind, as it affects the behaviour, will have some distinctions.
The brain is a physical and visible entity, which coordinates the activities of the body. While the mind is a perceived and invisible entity, which controls the process of thinking, and eventually, the way we behave.
In this way, we are made up of the body and mind, in our existence as social animals. This makes us to think, perceive, and act, in various ways. And, we tend to develop different ways of life within the world in which we live.
I completely agree with everything you said, only that I would not limit it to animals. By your very own definition, you talk about "mind" as being "conscious of themselves and their environment". Plants fit into this category as well, therefore they are conscious beings with "mind", even if they don't possess a brain. Their "thinking" processes are distributed, while humans are centralized, but this difference does not make the underlying experience any difference, right?
Thank you, @yvesoler, for making this clarification.
I have only mentioned the animal kingdom, whereas the plant kingdom shouldn't be left out. Because, these two kingdoms have certain things in common. It is only that, the lifestyle of animals shows more social and emotional discrepancies than that of the plants, through their ways of adapting into the environment.
The plants too have shown certain issues of having consciousness within their environment. They will react to the factors that make up the environment in certain ways.
Thereby, they tend to think and behave in peculiar ways, according to those factors that constitute the environment in which they live.
Did you know that plants also exhibit social behaviors, such as playing and passing down generational information? Stefano Mancuso often shows a video of Sunflower sprouts playing as they grow. A Sunflower that grows on its own without this type of social interaction with other sunflower plants, he explains, cannot be later integrated because it lacks the social skills. You can hear it straight from him in his TED talk, The roots of plant intelligence.
Plants are also recognize their own kind and pass on information and nutrition just to them. If you have three plants near each other and they are of the same species and the same family(meaning they are all parents and children), then they will share 100% of the information about their location, environment, predators, health, etc. If they are the same species, but not the same family, they will only pass on a percentage of information. If they are different species, then they will only pass on information about threats and predators. You can read more about the work of Suzanne Simard in understanding how plant families work in the forest.
Plants are much more "conscious" than most people realize.
Thank you, @yvesoler, for the considerable advice about the social importance of plants, as group of living things in the world.
I read Guidance & Counselling, B. Ed., a course related to Counselling Psychology. That's why, I have more knowledge of the animal world, than the plant world.
But, I believe that, whatever the animals have exhibited for their survival, the plants are bound to have similar tendencies. Because, they will both have to survive through the perils of this world.
But, I believe that the animals, as represented by the human beings, have shown more tendencies of a highly adaptive social and emotional lifestyle, through their rate of advanced development and dominant influence in the world of today.
I really believe that, the plants will have complimentary social and adaptive behaviour, to favour what the animals could have being doing. But, they will ultimately lack the social pressure exhibited by us, as they are lacking in the corresponding social tendencies.
I haven't being able to listen to Stefano Mancuso, about Plant Intelligence, but I will really do that later.
I only replied early, so that I won't delay the conversation.
You have really informed me about the plants.
Thanks again.
I appreciate the reply. Don't worry about the speed; I am also very busy in this period, so take your time.
I have a feeling your thoughts will change once you start learning about the work by Mancuso and Simard and many others. Remember, plants make up 99.7% of our planet. They are among the oldest beings on the planet and have not only survived, they continuously evolve to colonize new environments. Social relationships are the key to their existence. And while you do not think of them as dominant, just look at any sidewalk and watch how plants break through the strongest of concrete when they want to reach a specific location. We can't survive without them, but they will do just fine once we are gone.
I too believe this. Based on many studies of how plants react when people talk lovingly to them when measured with those who don't/or talk negatively to them it appears plants have an awareness as well.
Interesting link on this:
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-new-study-shows-plants-can.html
Not being a scientist, the most obvious question I have is whether the change has to do with the plant or the intent of the person. I can't say with certainty, although for reasons not scientific but more intuited I believe plants do have consciousness. Which then leads me to speculate if consciousness is a trait that has to do more with water than a brain as we know it. Since I was a child I have heard it said that water is the basis for life, so it seems logical to conclude it is the basis for consciousness.
I almost passed up your post until I read the comments. Will be checking back in the hopes of more finding your post and adding more considerations to your question.
The idea that consciousness could be tied to water is one I have not heard before, but it could fit in quite nicely with the panpsychism view, which states that everything physical, no matter if it is animate or inanimate, has an element of consciousness. If you were to think of water as the basis of consciousness, then this could make even more sense, since all objects have some level of moisture in them.
Thanks for the idea, it gives me a new direction for my studies.
Last night I was introduced to the cognitive theories of Maturana and Varela, which added another element to the discussion of consciousness, this time as a process in the network of life. I will be doing more study on this surely.
Thanks for being a part of the conversation. I look forward to your additional considerations!